from the awesome-on-multiple-levels dept

Here's a story which hits on so many different points that we're interested in. There's a new effort to crowdsource a "prize" for whoever can release an open source jailbreak for iOS7. First off, we've been big fans of "innovation prizes" like the X Prize. We're also big fans of crowdfunding -- so here's an example of combining both of those: crowdfunding an innovation prize -- which has already reached about $6,500 despite no publicity (yet). Next, the prize is for another thing that we think is of utmost importance: the freedom to tinker with products you bought. The locked down nature of the iPhone remains one of the shames of modern technology. Encouraging a true, open source jailbreak is important in opening up the technology -- for a variety of important reasons (including a huge one that inspired this project, as will be explained below). The project also has a four person team to judge which solution will qualify for the prize, including some folks you might recognize: Cory Doctorow, Kyle Wiens (of iFixit) and Gabreilla Coleman (professor who studies hacktivism, Anonymous and has posted here).

But perhaps the most interesting (if unfortunate) point in this story is the reason for the project in the first place. The fourth judge is Chris Maury, who inspired the creation of this project in the first place. Maury has Stargardt's Macular Degeneration, a genetic condition that has taken him from having 20/20 vision just a few years ago to rapidly losing his vision, to the point that he will eventually be legally blind (already he can no longer drive). He would like to be able to actually use his iPhone but much of the software that makes the phone usable with his vision isn't available in the iTunes App Store. Thus, he needs to jailbreak the phone in order to use it.

This is really the most shameful part of locked down systems. In the past, we've talked about how the short-sighted view of people who want to lock out certain types of applications almost resulted in a young girl being unable to communicate, and here we have a situation where someone with a severe visual impairment can't get everything possible out of the devices he's purchased. What kind of world are we living in that we think it's okay to have this as "standard operating procedures" for the electronics we use every day?

Thankfully, what giant companies try to lock up, creativity can hopefully unlock. And, in this case, we've got layer upon layer of creative innovations to try to get around a bad situation. While it's unfortunate that such a project is even necessary in the first place, it's inspiring to see this kind of creativity pop up to try to solve the problem. Go check out the project. If you want to contribute to the prize, you can do so there (and, yes, they accept Bitcoin, too), or if you feel like creating an open source jailbreak for iOS7 and collecting the prize (or just basking in the wonders of doing something good), check it out as well.

from the ouch dept

The jury in the Samsung/Apple patent fight took nearly everyone by surprise by rushing through its job and finishing it way, way, way before anyone expected. They didn't even ask any questions and with about 700 questions to answer, they breezed through it in no time. It was not a total victory for Apple (apparently the design patent on rounded-edge rectangles wasn't infringed), but it was pretty close. In the end, Samsung was found to infringe an awful lot of things (and sometimes willfully) and the the final bill is a stunning $1.05 billion owed to Apple. There's still a lot to sort through in the details, but this is a massive victory for Apple. Of course, Samsung has probably already written up its appeal (or will ask the judge to set the jury verdict aside or something), so this case is likely to be around for many years, but yet again we see just how ridiculous patent law can be. What the hell is wrong with competing in the marketplace? If Apple thinks Samsungs' phones and tablets are too similar? Well, keep on innovating. It's called competition, and now we'll have less of it...

Minor update: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it had not found infringement. While this will be corrected and won't change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously. When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money. But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this. It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.